Filter or no filter question yet again

realspeed

realspeed

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,827
Name
Bazza
Edit My Images
No
Yes I know it is the age old question being bought up again so this is my own finding and conclusion.

I have had the chance this evening to check the filters UV -clear etc under a CN-160 light and got quite a supprise. on my most used lenses the filters fitted had quite a bit of contamination on them. Some were smeared with finger prints etc whilst others had minute scratches/chips dirt particles.
Now I am not saying one should fit filters or not that is entirely up to a photographer. However having seen what can happen to a filter all I can say I am glad I fitted them and not have to send expensive lenses back for repair.

My recommendation is do look at your lens/filter under a bright light and make up ones own mind
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Yes I know it is the age old question being bought up again so this is my own finding and conclusion.

I have had the chance this evening to check the filters UV -clear etc under a CN-160 light and got quite a supprise. on my most used lenses the filters fitted had quite a bit of contamination on them. Some were smeared with finger prints etc whilst others had minute scratches/chips dirt particles.
Now I am not saying one should fit filters or not that is entirely up to a photographer. However having seen what can happen to a filter all I can say I am glad I fitted them and not have to send expensive lenses back for repair.

My recommendation is do look at your lens/filter under a bright light and make up ones own mind
Click to expand...
Interesting you say your glad you had the filters so you haven't had to send the lenses off for repair yet your still using the filters which implies nothing needs repairing!
 
My filters do get a bit of dirt and dust on them - IMO, easier than cleaning it off the front element.
 
Alex

In all the many years I have been taking photos i have never had to send a lens or camera back for repair but have replaced filters on occassion
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
Alex

In all the many years I have been taking photos i have never had to send a lens or camera back for repair but have replaced filters on occassion
Click to expand...

Which is why this thread will be the usual circular debate about image degradation, hoods for protection etc etc etc

Everyone's experience is different! Interestingly I don't think I've ever seen a thread on this forum showing significant damage to a lens that a filter would have prevented.

Do any of the lens rental companies supply lenses with filters on I can't remember from my past experience.
 
I was about to add, Are you using hoods? I will use a filter if I am shooting rallying for instance in a dusty environment. Otherwise, I don't bother with them.
 
I stopped using filter years ago, but I do use hoods when possible
 
Aex

I have had a filter shatter in the past but the lens was saved, how it happened I don't know, could have just been with temperature change or debris or just a cheap filter. Also chucked out 3/4 filters due to being scratched again saving the lens. But as I said originally this is just my findings.
 
I do have a 77mm and a 82mm UV filter but rarely use them, only used the 77mm on the 70-200 when I was in a position that I would get a bit muddy the the 82 is for the 16-35 and it is unused, I prefer to use all my lenses with hoods on for protection.
 
Hi Bazza

Generally no don't use filters, but do use hoods all the time.

Would use a filter if I was going somewhere where there was real need to - taking shots at the sea side where there was sea spray for example...
 
I recently bought a new lens from
LPS and when I asked for a UV filter, he talked me into buying a protective filter, apparently the latest digital cameras dont really need a UV filter, just an ordinary glass filter to protct the lens, a 72mm for my new lens was about £8.00 cheaper than the equivalent UV, so yes I use protective filters, but not a UV.
 
Andrew

i have just ordered a 77mm "skylight" filter (clear glass) for my new lens, I already have UV filters of that size on my other lenses.
The Guy at LPS is correct to a certain extent but not so long ago I was in Yosemite national part in California USA. Now the air was so clean and sharp I considered a UV filter necessary. So it all depends on where you are if a UV filter is best. So I always take both UV and clear. when snow is on the ground then a UV filter may be best



usemcopy.jpg
 
Last edited:
realspeed said:
The Guy at LPS is correct to a certain extent but not so long ago I was in Yosemite national part in California USA. Now the air was so clean and sharp I considered a UV filter necessary. So it all depends on where you are if a UV filter is best.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference at all. The filter in front of your sensor blocks virtually all UV light.

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
 
I entirely agree with OP. Having had flying tomatoes, sand and dust towards the lens it was always reassuring to know it wouldn't wreck the front element or compromise weather sealing. The hood obviously needs to stay on as well

hollis_f said:
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
Click to expand...

So there is mostly nothing to worry about in your own words
 
realspeed said:
i have just ordered a 77mm "skylight" filter (clear glass)
Click to expand...

Skylight filters have a slight pink tinge to them and are a relic from the film days - they were used to slightly adjust the white balance on sunny days.

With today's variable WB they serve no real purpose.
 
hollis_f said:
It makes no difference at all. The filter in front of your sensor blocks virtually all UV light.

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
Click to expand...


well put and for the record I agree 100% I use lens hoods on all my lenses ( and I own a few) to protect them as required

Les ;)
 
daugirdas said:
So there is mostly nothing to worry about in your own words
Click to expand...
This comment pretty much sums up both sides of the argument 99% of the time they do no harm but equally do no good. Hence some do and some don't and nobody ever seems to change sides in this debate!
 
I use a Leica M8 which needs UV/IR filters on lenses to correct a design fault on the camera. It is far too sensitive to IR without the filter. Leica actually supplied two filters free of charge.

Using them has converted me to a permanent filter user since seeing the dust and greasy marks that accumulate. Lens coatings are quite hard and stand reasonable cleaning these days but it's much cheaper to replace a filter than a lens element if damage does occur.
 
hollis_f said:
It makes no difference at all. The filter in front of your sensor blocks virtually all UV light.

* No UV/'protective' filter can improve image quality on a dSLR.
* All UV/'protective' filters will cause some degradation in image quality.
* The seriousness of this degradation tends to decrease as filter cost increases.
* Good filters will cause degradation that is not noticeable under most conditions.
* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.
Click to expand...

The question is based on the above is it worth it? A friend of mine last year went to a rally in wales, a car kicked up some gravel and a piece of which hit the uv filter. The filter was ruined, his lens was saved.
Do I need a uv to take landscapes? Probably not as youll have filters on most the time anyways.

Its all about your requirements vs this very slight image degradation
 
barratt1988 said:
No good for landscapes tho lol
Click to expand...

If you check my camera bag and look at the lenses I own- you'll see I don't do landscapes Phil

Sony DT 16-mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA Zeiss Lens
Sony DT 35mm f1.8 SAM Lens
Sony DT 50mm f1.4 SAM lens
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG Macro O/S Lens
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Les :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lez325 said:
If you check my camera bag and look at the lenses I own- you'll see I don't do landscapes Phil

Sony DT 16-mm f/3.5-4.5 ZA Zeiss Lens
Sony DT 35mm f1.8 SAM Lens
Sony DT 50mm f1.4 SAM lens
Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX DG Macro O/S Lens
Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG OS HSM
Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Les :p
Click to expand...
I dunno what the DT stands for in sony but all those lenses can be used for landscape. .. a 35mm would be sharp as hell
 
daugirdas said:
So there is mostly nothing to worry about in your own words
Click to expand...

* All filters, even the best, will cause noticeable degradation in some conditions.

Do you always stop reading when you find some portion that agrres with you?
 
I go with the pro filter brigade - although I use protector filters not UV. I believe that the added security and peace of mind a filter gives is worth any possible minor degradation.

Although it is possible that UV etc filters may cause picture degradation in some cases I am not convinced that the average human eye is always capable of discerning the effect. It is well known that the human eye cannot recognise all the various colour shades that our cameras are capable of recording and I suspect minor picture degradation falls into this category. I have tried taking two identical photos with and without a filter and to my (admittedly aging) eyes I can see no difference at all.

I agree fully with the comment above that people fall in two camps on this matter and will never change their point of view.
 
I used to use filters on all my lenses
Have changed my mind a bit when I took the uv one off my 100-400 I could see am improvement in sharpness
I do still use them sometimes though for protection on my macro lens and can't tell from the shots if there was a filter on or not
When I go to the butterfly house which is very hot and humid even with taking precautions I still have to wipe off condensation off the lens so I figured that I would use a filter rather than chance scratching the lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top